The added value of behavior-based safety programs in the workplace

Behavior-based safety (BBS) is a system which is predicated on the scientific study of the causes and effects of employee behaviour within the matrix of an organization. This system requires the analysis of all employee behaviour irrespective of their position within the company, as such it must include all employees from the Chief Executive Officer through the individuals in the stock room who unload shipments from trucks and stock shelves. The premise of this system is the scientific analysis and manipulation of existing behaviors and behavioural trends in order to meet specific objectives ().

Though there are numerous BBS "programs" available for purchase and those programs all implement the basic tenets of the system in a proprietary and unique way, the overall goal of all of them is the elimination of injury as well as the organization wide shift in attitude. BBS specifically addresses the fact that attitude and behaviour are mutually dependent variables which cannot be successful without the other (). In any effort to improve the safety consciousness of an organization existing attitudes and behaviours must first be assessed then evaluated and then changed when necessary. BBS utilizes multilevel teams in the observation, evaluation, and evolution of existing behaviours. It has been shown to return up to 2 milion dollars per 200,000 hours invested (). The majority of such savings is in insurance claims as well as profits lost following an accident.

Section 3: Research Aim

My goal for the purposes of this study is investigate through a comprehensive literature review the degree to which utilizing a behaviour-based safety system in corporate environments is effective.

BBS as a Construct:

Behavior-Based Safety is a construct which is predicated on the assessment evaluation and adaptation of workplace behaviours for the purpose of increasing safety and consequently decreasing the number of safety related losses incurred by an organization (DePasquale, & Geller, 1999). Though there are systems which can be purchased from behavioural analysis organizations who then enter an organization and effectively re-educate employees on effective efficient and safe methods of performing their role within an organization, even these "packaged" systems require a great deal of time and a substantial contribution of man power to implement effectively. The primary tenet of BBS is that behaviour must be assessed and analyzed scientifically (Geller, 1994). While it is important to address feelings and existing social and psychological issues what is specifically of interest in BBS is the behaviour of employees. Behavior must be observed thoroughly in a natural setting, analyzed, and then adjusted through the development of shared goals and objectives tailored to specific individuals within the context of the goals of their larger organization ().

Implementation of BBS:

The implementation of BBS takes on average six months to a year in order to implement it effectively. The majority of that time is spent observing and analysing the behaviour of each and every employee. That is perhaps the most defining yet difficult aspect of this particular system (Krause, Seymour, & Slaut, 1999). Rather than only select employees being analyzed and observed it is crucial for all employees irrespective of their rank from the most senior to most junior must be analyzed in order for effective strategies to be developed in the ultimate goal of increasing the safety of an organization.

In order to implement BBS effectively multilevel teams are generally incorporated into the various departments to engage in behavioural analysis of employees (Turner & Parker, 2004). Though the specific make up and dispersal of these teams varies between organization and between analytical group that discrete teams of observers and analysts exist is common to all incarnations of the system (Williams & Geller, 2000). These teams ultimately function in the specific observation and analysis of individual departments, meaning that these teams are differentiated and specified for the specific tasks of observing specific departments and the behaviour of their employees.

History of BBS:

BBS is a system that was first introduced by Herbert William Heinrich in 1930. The theory was based on his assessment of countless insurance claims which came under his review while he worked for the Travelers Insurance Company (DeJoy, 1994). Under review Heinrich came to believe that many of the accidents for which his employer paid out substantial claims were the result of individual human error. His finding that as much as 88% of claimed injury was the result of worker error is a finding still cited, and was largely the impetus behind the development of the system (Eisenberg & McDonald, 1988).

Though Heinrich was confident in his assessment that the injuries were the result of worker error, he was unable to understand or successfully address the reasons that such injuries occurred. The point of BBS is to determine what variables specific to individual organizations and organizational cultures that ultimately combined to result in the accident (Fenn & Ashby, 2004). The variables addressed in this plan are not only the actions of individual employees but also the environment, tools, procedures, and any other aspect of the organization or organizational culture which has the potential to result in injury.

Criticisms of BBS:

Though Heinrich developed a system which addressed the scientific and quantitative assessment of potential workplace hazards both physical and abstract, one thing he did not consider was the psychological and emotional factor which influences human behaviour (Griffin, & Neal, 2000). Though an employee can be up-to-date on all of the relevant safety protocols that does not account for their ability or will to recall those protocols in the face of intense personal hardship. The workplace environment and education only account for a percentage of an individual's overall psychological profile (Neal, Griffin, & Hart 2000). In order to be truly all encompassing BBS would need to consider factors which extend beyond the corporate environment.

It must also be considered the extreme length of the process of utilizing a BBS assessment. BBS is extremely time and money intensive which limits the number of firms able to utilize it (Kaminski, 2001). Though the system is extremely helpful, it must also be noted that it will only be as useful as the number of organizations that utilize real BBS, because of the prohibited expense it is possible that organizations in an effort to get results without expending the time or effort may ultimately sabotage themselves (Hechanova-Alampay & Beehr, 2001). BBS must be developed in a shorter less manpower intensive format which can be made more affordable and available to all businesses.

Section 5: Research Methods. You should outline your proposed methods of data collection and analysis. You should also outline your own current capabilities in terms of e.g. statistical analysis if relevant. This should be approximately 200 words in length

It is quantitative research, or qualitative

This will be a qualitative assessment of the construct of Behavior-based safety as a system of effecting organisational change. Due to the nature of BBS (behavior-based safety) as a system it is necessary to spend a great deal of time studying the behavior of a significant number of people. This is not currently feasible given the demands of full time studentship. Further it is essential for any researcher studying BBS or attempting to implement BBS into a corporate setting to also be incorporated into that organization for a period of months at least. Locating an organization which would allow such a thing as well as observing the day-to-day operations of said organization are a full time commitment which the researcher cannot make at this time. However, there are a significant number of existing quantitative studies already published in peer reviewed journal sources. These sources will be reviewed thoroughly and compared against each other in terms of relative effectiveness of the implementation of BBS and the outcomes observed within those organizations included in the studies. Ultimately the relative efficacy of BBS in achieving identified behavioural outcomes will be evaluated qualitatively. Though it is generally preferred to generate independent research, in this instance it is more practical for the purposes of evaluating BBS as a whole construct to utilize the data already gathered and analyzed by numerous other researchers, thus allowing for a much broader evaluation of BBS as opposed to individual corporate environments.

Section 6: References / Bibliography

1. DePasquale, J., & Geller, E., 1999. Critical Success factors for behaviour- based safety: A study of twenty industry- wide applications. Journal of Safety Research,4, 237- 249.

2. Krause, T., Seymour, K., & Sloat, K., 1999. Long-term evaluation of a behaviour- based method for improving safety performance. Safety Science, 32, 1-18.

3. Williams, J., & Geller, E., 2000. Behavior- based intervention for occupational safety: Critical impact of social comparison feedback. Journal of Safety research, 1-11.

4. Geller, E., 1994. Ten principles for achieving a total safety culture. Professional Safety, 39, 18- 24.

5. DeJoy, D.M., 1994. Managing safety in the workplace: An attribution theory analysis and model. Journal of Safety Research, 25, 3 -- 17.

6. Eisenberg, W.M., & McDonald, H.,1988. Evaluating workplace injury and illness records: Testing a procedure. Monthly Labor Review, 111(4), 58 -- 60.

7. Fenn, P., & Ashby, S., 2004. Workplace risk, establishment size, and union density. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42, 461 -- 480.

8. Griffin, M.A., & Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347 -- 358.

9. Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, 99 -- 109.

10. Hechanova-Alampay, R.H., & Beehr, T.A., 2001. Empowerment, span of control and safety performance in work teams after workforce reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 275 -- 282.

11. Kaminski, M., 2001. Unintended consequences: Organizational practices and their impact on workplace safety and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 127 -- 138.

Turner, N., & Parker, S.K., 2004. The effect of teamwork on safety processes and outcomes. In J. Barling & M.R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 35 -- 62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

12. Section 6: Timetable of Activity. You should complete the GANTT chart below.

Part-time students will undertake the dissertation over 30 weeks, full-time students over 18 weeks.

Make sure you know your final hand-in date.

It may make sense to work backwards from that.

(You may wish to alter this timetable of activity to reflect your activity over weeks rather than months -- this is entirely up to you.)

Task

Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Month 4

Month 5

Month 6

Month 7

Scheme briefing

Taught support

Complete proposal

Submit proposal

Allocated supervisor

Contact supervisor

Literature review

Methodology chapter

Data collection

Data analysis

Findings chapter

Discussion chapter

Conclusion

Recommendations